4 ms·

Very cool. But I can’t help thinking they would be siting ducks if there was armed resistance on that vessel...

praveenperera 5y ago
Not if they had a remotely controlled turret attached as well!
TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
Shooting a moving target is actually extremely difficult, especially if you are using a rifle instead of a shotgun. You can also see one of the soldiers drawing and aiming a handgun after landing, so they aren't completely without firepower. Chances are good that they could also strap a bullpup rifle or subcompact machine gun on their chest during flight. Also if significant resistance is expected, there are always torpedoes.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  Shooting a target that moves at a constant speed isn’t hard even with a rifle, at least not at these ranges. A more interesting use for these would be if they can be used as an arrested landing system for arial insertion at that point you essentially get drop troopers. This is a nice proof of concept but i doubt this would go through a sufficient risk reduction to be useful in an actual combat situation anytime soon.
- hervature 5y ago
  A moving target only gets bigger if it is moving directly towards you. At some point, the jetpack has to start moving towards a landing.
secfirstmd 5y ago
I think you need to compare it to the existing alternatives when boarding which are essentially a boat + ladder (fixed or grapple style) or a very large helicopter hovering above a static limited location (e.g a wide open space away from wires). Once people starting going down the rope, the helo is pretty much committed (albeit with covering fire most likely). Whatever happens, usually that process only then gets you on one place, e.g one level. Smarter defenders often make that harder for people assaulting - locating sentries, using barbed wire to block those places etc. You then have to fight, often through openish ground until you get to the first breaching points on that same level. Everyone is usually coming from the one location, for example where the ladder or helo rope is and doing it one by one. So it might take 30-60 seconds at least to get everyone onto the ship. It would be much quicker to board and harder to defend if an assault team could land basically anywhere on the ship simultaneously. All of a sudden you have people assaulting from front, rear, sides, top and then downwards etc etc. You are suddenly trying to defend from 10 different assaulting positions. Plus the noise and signature of the jet packs will probably be lower than that of a helicopter, so a chance for more surprise. Anywhere with a small enough gap for the jet pack to land. I assume also in future they will make the transition to fighting a lot faster, such as some kind of quick release mechanism to drop the jetpack stuff off you and get into the fight. Also another side benefit is that you can use your jetpack to get back off the ship. That might not be the case if it's too tricky for the helo or assault boat to recover you.
- arethuza 5y ago
  There already seems to be some kind of quick release mechanism - they can attach the arm mounted components to the backpack pretty quickly - you can see it when the chap with the ladder lands at about 2 mins into the video.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The existing alternative is to fast rope off a helicopter. Jetpacks afford you the ability to land in multiple locations but guys in the air are going to be very vulnerable without the helicopter crew to cover them. Other than being cheaper than a helicopter I don't see how this changes much if the defense is at least semi-competent.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    A helicopter being stationary enough for people to fast rope out of it is also vulnerable. I don't see why they couldn't still have the helicopter providing fire support while they approach with the jetpacks.
    - mgolawala 5y ago
      Also imagine a boarding like this occurring at night. Sure night vision goggles are ubiquitous at this point, but it is still going to be a smaller/stealthier approach compared to a helicopter. Also boardings can be done safely in far more situations, much further out to sea. You can carry a few of these on pretty much any patrol boat, a helicopter needs a take off/landing site and has an operating distance.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Sometimes being smaller and more manoeuvrable is better than being better protected but larger and less manoeuvrable.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >It would be much quicker to board and harder to defend if an assault team could land basically anywhere on the ship simultaneously. All of a sudden you have people assaulting from front, rear, sides, top and then downwards etc etc. Yes; see 3:45, when three people in jetsuits arrive at once. In a situation where boarding is urgent, each additional arrival increases the chance that someone will succeed in getting a ladder down.
Mauricebranagh 5y ago
I assume this is for stealthy / assaults eg pop up at the last minute where you also have other assets that can suppress the target. And assaulting via a small boat is going to be a larger target and slower and harder
_joel 5y ago
This is intended for situations where you'd be rapelling down from a helicopter, so it's no different, in fact possibly safer. During these boarding events there will be a lot of other munitions pointed at the vessel in target.
jessriedel 5y ago
Besides what others have said (this has to be compared to next-best options, fire suppression can come from someone besides the jetpack flyer), it would be possible to mount a gun firing over the shoulder/head that would be controlled by head movement, rather than hand movement. This is already done in Apache helicopters, which allows the pilot to fire on targets while leaving his hands free to fly the aircraft. > One of the revolutionary features of the Apache was its helmet mounted display, the Integrated Helmet and Display Sighting System (IHADSS);[51][52] among its capabilities, either the pilot or gunner can slave the helicopter's 30 mm automatic M230 Chain Gun to their helmet, making the gun track head movements to point where they look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Avionics_and_targeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Avionics_a... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQp6o0Hm7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQp6o0Hm7o I have heard it described as "like having guns firing out of your eyeballs".
- thedrbrian 5y ago
  And it would weigh a hell of a lot more than the safety margin on the "jet pack"
  - plouffy 5y ago
    Not to mention that the recoil would be very difficult to control.
    - jessriedel 5y ago
      Do you think handgun recoil would be hard to control? Not clear to me.
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    To be clear, I'm not talking about putting the gun from the Apache on the jetpack, just the helmet and a small arm (e.g., something with a caliber like a handgun). You could be right that that would weigh too much, but that's not at all clear to me.

Not if they had a remotely controlled turret attached as well!

Shooting a moving target is actually extremely difficult, especially if you are using a rifle instead of a shotgun. You can also see one of the soldiers drawing and aiming a handgun after landing, so they aren't completely without firepower. Chances are good that they could also strap a bullpup rifle or subcompact machine gun on their chest during flight. Also if significant resistance is expected, there are always torpedoes.

dogma1138 5y ago
Shooting a target that moves at a constant speed isn’t hard even with a rifle, at least not at these ranges. A more interesting use for these would be if they can be used as an arrested landing system for arial insertion at that point you essentially get drop troopers. This is a nice proof of concept but i doubt this would go through a sufficient risk reduction to be useful in an actual combat situation anytime soon.
hervature 5y ago
A moving target only gets bigger if it is moving directly towards you. At some point, the jetpack has to start moving towards a landing.

secfirstmd 5y ago

I think you need to compare it to the existing alternatives when boarding which are essentially a boat + ladder (fixed or grapple style) or a very large helicopter hovering above a static limited location (e.g a wide open space away from wires). Once people starting going down the rope, the helo is pretty much committed (albeit with covering fire most likely). Whatever happens, usually that process only then gets you on one place, e.g one level. Smarter defenders often make that harder for people assaulting - locating sentries, using barbed wire to block those places etc. You then have to fight, often through openish ground until you get to the first breaching points on that same level. Everyone is usually coming from the one location, for example where the ladder or helo rope is and doing it one by one. So it might take 30-60 seconds at least to get everyone onto the ship. It would be much quicker to board and harder to defend if an assault team could land basically anywhere on the ship simultaneously. All of a sudden you have people assaulting from front, rear, sides, top and then downwards etc etc. You are suddenly trying to defend from 10 different assaulting positions. Plus the noise and signature of the jet packs will probably be lower than that of a helicopter, so a chance for more surprise. Anywhere with a small enough gap for the jet pack to land. I assume also in future they will make the transition to fighting a lot faster, such as some kind of quick release mechanism to drop the jetpack stuff off you and get into the fight. Also another side benefit is that you can use your jetpack to get back off the ship. That might not be the case if it's too tricky for the helo or assault boat to recover you.

arethuza 5y ago
There already seems to be some kind of quick release mechanism - they can attach the arm mounted components to the backpack pretty quickly - you can see it when the chap with the ladder lands at about 2 mins into the video.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The existing alternative is to fast rope off a helicopter. Jetpacks afford you the ability to land in multiple locations but guys in the air are going to be very vulnerable without the helicopter crew to cover them. Other than being cheaper than a helicopter I don't see how this changes much if the defense is at least semi-competent.
- fredophile 5y ago
  A helicopter being stationary enough for people to fast rope out of it is also vulnerable. I don't see why they couldn't still have the helicopter providing fire support while they approach with the jetpacks.
  - mgolawala 5y ago
    Also imagine a boarding like this occurring at night. Sure night vision goggles are ubiquitous at this point, but it is still going to be a smaller/stealthier approach compared to a helicopter. Also boardings can be done safely in far more situations, much further out to sea. You can carry a few of these on pretty much any patrol boat, a helicopter needs a take off/landing site and has an operating distance.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Sometimes being smaller and more manoeuvrable is better than being better protected but larger and less manoeuvrable.
TMWNN 5y ago
>It would be much quicker to board and harder to defend if an assault team could land basically anywhere on the ship simultaneously. All of a sudden you have people assaulting from front, rear, sides, top and then downwards etc etc. Yes; see 3:45, when three people in jetsuits arrive at once. In a situation where boarding is urgent, each additional arrival increases the chance that someone will succeed in getting a ladder down.

Mauricebranagh 5y ago

I assume this is for stealthy / assaults eg pop up at the last minute where you also have other assets that can suppress the target. And assaulting via a small boat is going to be a larger target and slower and harder

_joel 5y ago

This is intended for situations where you'd be rapelling down from a helicopter, so it's no different, in fact possibly safer. During these boarding events there will be a lot of other munitions pointed at the vessel in target.

jessriedel 5y ago

Besides what others have said (this has to be compared to next-best options, fire suppression can come from someone besides the jetpack flyer), it would be possible to mount a gun firing over the shoulder/head that would be controlled by head movement, rather than hand movement. This is already done in Apache helicopters, which allows the pilot to fire on targets while leaving his hands free to fly the aircraft. > One of the revolutionary features of the Apache was its helmet mounted display, the Integrated Helmet and Display Sighting System (IHADSS);[51][52] among its capabilities, either the pilot or gunner can slave the helicopter's 30 mm automatic M230 Chain Gun to their helmet, making the gun track head movements to point where they look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Avionics_and_targeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Avionics_a... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQp6o0Hm7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMQp6o0Hm7o I have heard it described as "like having guns firing out of your eyeballs".

thedrbrian 5y ago
And it would weigh a hell of a lot more than the safety margin on the "jet pack"
- plouffy 5y ago
  Not to mention that the recoil would be very difficult to control.
  - jessriedel 5y ago
    Do you think handgun recoil would be hard to control? Not clear to me.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  To be clear, I'm not talking about putting the gun from the Apache on the jetpack, just the helmet and a small arm (e.g., something with a caliber like a handgun). You could be right that that would weigh too much, but that's not at all clear to me.